You are quite correct... I'm not sure where else to look. It's not in tricks, grapple benefits, or the index. Personally I'd just rule it as a grapple benefit that allows the winner to transfer the loser from held to pinned.

Logged

Welcome to You Don't Meet In An Inn where your hosts Christine and Austin look at and play through obscure role playing games.

Held: The character is flat-footed and may take no non-freeactions except an opposed Athletics check to escape the hold. Acharacter who becomes held a second time loses this conditionand becomes pinned.

I believe the exact text Arceom is looking for is the last sentence in the second paragraph under the grapple heading. "The winner of this check may pin the opponent or choose 1 Grapple benefit (see next."

Logged

"After all is said and done, more is said than done."- AesopMortality clarified in a single strike!

Note that this means you can get yourself pinned on YOUR turn, and then when your foe's turn comes around you could be in for a world of hurt.

This was why when my Pech was grappled by a veritable giant, I just delayed* until I had to forfeit my turn. I had virtually no hope of beating my opponent, so I just bought as much time as I could until my group could help me out.

Note that this means you can get yourself pinned on YOUR turn, and then when your foe's turn comes around you could be in for a world of hurt.

Are you saying that there would be two athletics checks per round, one on each participant's turn? I thought the grapple was resolved with the first to act and the other guy(s) participated in that same full action check.

Are you saying that there would be two athletics checks per round, one on each participant's turn? I thought the grapple was resolved with the first to act and the other guy(s) participated in that same full action check.

Why would fighting a grapple check be conducted any differently to any other combat action? All it does is limit the choices available to you.

Note that this means you can get yourself pinned on YOUR turn, and then when your foe's turn comes around you could be in for a world of hurt.

Are you saying that there would be two athletics checks per round, one on each participant's turn? I thought the grapple was resolved with the first to act and the other guy(s) participated in that same full action check.

That's an interesting read, though as Mr. A's said it would be a significant departure from "the norm" of combat/init order/action economy. Forcing the opponent to sacrifice all his actions to participate in your check sounds like a pretty hefty benefit, but it might not be bearly as bad as it sounds in practice.

Are you saying that there would be two athletics checks per round, one on each participant's turn? I thought the grapple was resolved with the first to act and the other guy(s) participated in that same full action check.

Why would fighting a grapple check be conducted any differently to any other combat action? All it does is limit the choices available to you.

It shouldn't be conducted any differently than any other combat action. If an orc hits you with its sword, you don't get a separate dodge roll on your turn. Likewise, if you lose the full-action opposed Athletics check in a grapple, you don't get a separate one on your turn. Combat actions are atomic and uninterruptable except for a few actions (Ready, Parry) that are clearly called out in their descriptions as to how they interrupt.

Note that I'm not referring to the initial check as defender isn't under the limitations of the grapple rules until after he fails it. By the grapple rules, the only non-free action a participant in a grapple can take is a full-action opposed Athletics check. That's what limits your choices.

That's an interesting read, though as Mr. A's said it would be a significant departure from "the norm" of combat/init order/action economy.

On the contrary, I think it's the standard way. No other condition (held) gives you multiple attempts to break it every round. Outside of a grapple, you can participate in one full-action per round. Why should it be different inside of a grapple?

I look at it as the involuntary version of becoming a mounted character. Once mounted, each character no longer acts on his initiative but rather they act as one. Likewise, a grapple is kind of a collective where everyone has a limited set of actions.

Otherwise you're allowing the participants in the grapple to take multiple full round actions in a single round in addition to the delay silliness mentioned earlier. Refusing to make the grapple check shouldn't stop your opponent from pinning you, it should assure it.

Forcing the opponent to sacrifice all his actions to participate in your check sounds like a pretty hefty benefit, but it might not be bearly as bad as it sounds in practice.

For most creatures it's the only point of a grapple. Unless you're a giant snake, you're probably grappling to prevent your opponent from taking his usual effective actions and in return you give up yours. Rolling multiple times per round shortens the grapple and makes it a less effective hold.Yes, you can pin someone quicker, but that's not really the point of a grapple.

I don't know that my reading is the intended reading but it seems (to me ) to be reasonable. You have all of the same options but the single check per round means two equals end up grappling for more than a single round. And it avoids the go-limp defense.

Of course it should be treated like every opther action. That's where your reading fails.

The problem with your reading is that the defender in the initial grapple check is not taking an action, they're opposing a check.

According to your interpretation, when a character is the target of a threaten action, they should loose a standard action on their turn since they burned that rolling Resolve. Same with Taunt and Sense Motive.

Also, Grapple is a full action, not a full round action. Full actions consist of 2 half actions. Full round actions would resolve on your next initiative count. The only full round actions are casting some spells.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2012, 10:44:37 PM by Krensky »

Logged

Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.There's no upside in screwing without things you can't explain. - Captain Roy MontgomeryPSN: Krensky_ Steam + GOG: Krensky

I think in the typical case, both readings work out the same. Normally, a character grapples because they are quite good at it, and they will obviously outclass their opponent, in which case the opponent's best option is to do nothing on their turn to avoid making things worse for themselves. It does make a difference if both grapplers are evenly matched however.

Even though this doesn't work according to the RAW, as a GM I would have no problem allowing a grappler to take the Total Defense action, and apply the bonus to their grapple checks for the round, and I certainly feel like it's within the spirit of the rules. Maybe that would help if the do nothing to not make things worse logic bothers you (and it bothers me, a little bit).